Trump administration to propose rule that would cut 3.1 million people from food stamp program

[pknopp]

Not under Capitalism, only under Socialism. Fundamentals matter under capitalism, not any subjective value of social morals for free.

You still think you should get paid even though you won't work.

You would do yourself well if you would get used to the idea because before long there are going to be a lot of people doing that.

When we all "get used to the idea", we might as well pack it in, because America will be over.

Whatever......I consider that when certain people can break the law and get away with it, we have already crossed that line.

Show us the express immigration clause. Only illegals don't care about the law. Only hypocrites blame the less fortunate.

I don't think you understood the conversation. I'm not the one that argued an express clause.

 

[danielpalos]

You still think you should get paid even though you won't work.

You would do yourself well if you would get used to the idea because before long there are going to be a lot of people doing that.

When we all "get used to the idea", we might as well pack it in, because America will be over.

Whatever......I consider that when certain people can break the law and get away with it, we have already crossed that line.

Show us the express immigration clause. Only illegals don't care about the law. Only hypocrites blame the less fortunate.

I don't think you understood the conversation. I'm not the one that argued an express clause.

I am. It is federal doctrine and federal policy.

 

[hadit]

You would do yourself well if you would get used to the idea because before long there are going to be a lot of people doing that.

When we all "get used to the idea", we might as well pack it in, because America will be over.

Whatever......I consider that when certain people can break the law and get away with it, we have already crossed that line.

Show us the express immigration clause. Only illegals don't care about the law. Only hypocrites blame the less fortunate.

I don't think you understood the conversation. I'm not the one that argued an express clause.

I am. It is federal doctrine and federal policy.

We're very aware that there are maybe three subjects you argue, and it doesn't matter to you what is the topic of the thread.

 

[danielpalos]

When we all "get used to the idea", we might as well pack it in, because America will be over.

Whatever......I consider that when certain people can break the law and get away with it, we have already crossed that line.

Show us the express immigration clause. Only illegals don't care about the law. Only hypocrites blame the less fortunate.

I don't think you understood the conversation. I'm not the one that argued an express clause.

I am. It is federal doctrine and federal policy.

We're very aware that there are maybe three subjects you argue, and it doesn't matter to you what is the topic of the thread.

Employment is at the will of either party. Only illegals don't care about the law. Only hypocrites blame the Poor.

 

[hadit]

Whatever......I consider that when certain people can break the law and get away with it, we have already crossed that line.

Show us the express immigration clause. Only illegals don't care about the law. Only hypocrites blame the less fortunate.

I don't think you understood the conversation. I'm not the one that argued an express clause.

I am. It is federal doctrine and federal policy.

We're very aware that there are maybe three subjects you argue, and it doesn't matter to you what is the topic of the thread.

Employment is at the will of either party. Only illegals don't care about the law. Only hypocrites blame the Poor.

And that's one of your subjects. Doesn't relate to restricting food stamps to only those who really them.

 

[danielpalos]

Show us the express immigration clause. Only illegals don't care about the law. Only hypocrites blame the less fortunate.

I don't think you understood the conversation. I'm not the one that argued an express clause.

I am. It is federal doctrine and federal policy.

We're very aware that there are maybe three subjects you argue, and it doesn't matter to you what is the topic of the thread.

Employment is at the will of either party. Only illegals don't care about the law. Only hypocrites blame the Poor.

And that's one of your subjects. Doesn't relate to restricting food stamps to only those who really them.

They shouldn't need them if they could otherwise be employed or compensated for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. It is simply more cost effective and reduces incentive for fraud.

 

[hadit]

I don't think you understood the conversation. I'm not the one that argued an express clause.

I am. It is federal doctrine and federal policy.

We're very aware that there are maybe three subjects you argue, and it doesn't matter to you what is the topic of the thread.

Employment is at the will of either party. Only illegals don't care about the law. Only hypocrites blame the Poor.

And that's one of your subjects. Doesn't relate to restricting food stamps to only those who really them.

They shouldn't need them if they could otherwise be employed or compensated for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. It is simply more cost effective and reduces incentive for fraud.

That's irrelevant to the topic.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I don't think you understood the conversation. I'm not the one that argued an express clause.

I am. It is federal doctrine and federal policy.

We're very aware that there are maybe three subjects you argue, and it doesn't matter to you what is the topic of the thread.

Employment is at the will of either party. Only illegals don't care about the law. Only hypocrites blame the Poor.

And that's one of your subjects. Doesn't relate to restricting food stamps to only those who really them.

They shouldn't need them if they could otherwise be employed or compensated for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. It is simply more cost effective and reduces incentive for fraud.

/----/ Yes, but you're missing the key point that Internal reconstruction needs a lot of time and statutory requirements to occur because in internal reconstruction the company has to take the permission of every stakeholder and also of the court. On the other hand, external reconstruction can be done immediately without any need of permission from the court.

 

[danielpalos]

I am. It is federal doctrine and federal policy.

We're very aware that there are maybe three subjects you argue, and it doesn't matter to you what is the topic of the thread.

Employment is at the will of either party. Only illegals don't care about the law. Only hypocrites blame the Poor.

And that's one of your subjects. Doesn't relate to restricting food stamps to only those who really them.

They shouldn't need them if they could otherwise be employed or compensated for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. It is simply more cost effective and reduces incentive for fraud.

That's irrelevant to the topic.

you should have an economic reason not just a politically biased reason.

 

[danielpalos]

I am. It is federal doctrine and federal policy.

We're very aware that there are maybe three subjects you argue, and it doesn't matter to you what is the topic of the thread.

Employment is at the will of either party. Only illegals don't care about the law. Only hypocrites blame the Poor.

And that's one of your subjects. Doesn't relate to restricting food stamps to only those who really them.

They shouldn't need them if they could otherwise be employed or compensated for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. It is simply more cost effective and reduces incentive for fraud.

/----/ Yes, but you're missing the key point that Internal reconstruction needs a lot of time and statutory requirements to occur because in internal reconstruction the company has to take the permission of every stakeholder and also of the court. On the other hand, external reconstruction can be done immediately without any need of permission from the court.

you are missing the point about efficiency. labor would be self-selecting based on more economic reason rather than mere Necessity.

people could just quit and go unemployment through no fault of your own. our current regime of unemployment would need to be simplified to become more cost effective.

a general tax for unemployment compensation would eliminate that burden for the employment sector.

An at-will employment State should need to prove for-cause employment in any at-will employment State to deny or disparage unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis.

An Institutional upward pressure on wages also benefits the Poor and helps markets become more efficient through more full employment of capital resources.

 

[Cellblock2429]

We're very aware that there are maybe three subjects you argue, and it doesn't matter to you what is the topic of the thread.

Employment is at the will of either party. Only illegals don't care about the law. Only hypocrites blame the Poor.

And that's one of your subjects. Doesn't relate to restricting food stamps to only those who really them.

They shouldn't need them if they could otherwise be employed or compensated for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. It is simply more cost effective and reduces incentive for fraud.

/----/ Yes, but you're missing the key point that Internal reconstruction needs a lot of time and statutory requirements to occur because in internal reconstruction the company has to take the permission of every stakeholder and also of the court. On the other hand, external reconstruction can be done immediately without any need of permission from the court.

you are missing the point about efficiency. labor would be self-selecting based on more economic reason rather than mere Necessity.

people could just quit and go unemployment through no fault of your own. our current regime of unemployment would need to be simplified to become more cost effective.

a general tax for unemployment compensation would eliminate that burden for the employment sector.

An at-will employment State should need to prove for-cause employment in any at-will employment State to deny or disparage unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis.

An Institutional upward pressure on wages also benefits the Poor and helps markets become more efficient through more full employment of capital resources.

/----/ No no no, one solution is bartering. Tom the stranger could trade Jill the seamstress something for a shirt. Yet for this to work Tom must have something that Jill wants that is of similar value to the shirt. This is called a coincidence of wants, and it is a hard thing to come by. There is no guarantee that Tom the stranger will have anything that Jill the seamstress wants, and even if he does, there is the problem of value. Problem solved.

 

[danielpalos]

Employment is at the will of either party. Only illegals don't care about the law. Only hypocrites blame the Poor.

And that's one of your subjects. Doesn't relate to restricting food stamps to only those who really them.

They shouldn't need them if they could otherwise be employed or compensated for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. It is simply more cost effective and reduces incentive for fraud.

/----/ Yes, but you're missing the key point that Internal reconstruction needs a lot of time and statutory requirements to occur because in internal reconstruction the company has to take the permission of every stakeholder and also of the court. On the other hand, external reconstruction can be done immediately without any need of permission from the court.

you are missing the point about efficiency. labor would be self-selecting based on more economic reason rather than mere Necessity.

people could just quit and go unemployment through no fault of your own. our current regime of unemployment would need to be simplified to become more cost effective.

a general tax for unemployment compensation would eliminate that burden for the employment sector.

An at-will employment State should need to prove for-cause employment in any at-will employment State to deny or disparage unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis.

An Institutional upward pressure on wages also benefits the Poor and helps markets become more efficient through more full employment of capital resources.

/----/ No no no, one solution is bartering. Tom the stranger could trade Jill the seamstress something for a shirt. Yet for this to work Tom must have something that Jill wants that is of similar value to the shirt. This is called a coincidence of wants, and it is a hard thing to come by. There is no guarantee that Tom the stranger will have anything that Jill the seamstress wants, and even if he does, there is the problem of value. Problem solved.

a medium of exchange is simply more capitally efficient. we even put "In God We Trust" on our Fiat money, can you believe it?

 

[Cellblock2429]

And that's one of your subjects. Doesn't relate to restricting food stamps to only those who really them.

They shouldn't need them if they could otherwise be employed or compensated for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. It is simply more cost effective and reduces incentive for fraud.

/----/ Yes, but you're missing the key point that Internal reconstruction needs a lot of time and statutory requirements to occur because in internal reconstruction the company has to take the permission of every stakeholder and also of the court. On the other hand, external reconstruction can be done immediately without any need of permission from the court.

you are missing the point about efficiency. labor would be self-selecting based on more economic reason rather than mere Necessity.

people could just quit and go unemployment through no fault of your own. our current regime of unemployment would need to be simplified to become more cost effective.

a general tax for unemployment compensation would eliminate that burden for the employment sector.

An at-will employment State should need to prove for-cause employment in any at-will employment State to deny or disparage unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis.

An Institutional upward pressure on wages also benefits the Poor and helps markets become more efficient through more full employment of capital resources.

/----/ No no no, one solution is bartering. Tom the stranger could trade Jill the seamstress something for a shirt. Yet for this to work Tom must have something that Jill wants that is of similar value to the shirt. This is called a coincidence of wants, and it is a hard thing to come by. There is no guarantee that Tom the stranger will have anything that Jill the seamstress wants, and even if he does, there is the problem of value. Problem solved.

a medium of exchange is simply more capitally efficient. we even put "In God We Trust" on our Fiat money, can you believe it?

/—-/ Only if you subscribe to the Kessinton Model of Redistribution back when we were on the gold standard.

 

[danielpalos]

They shouldn't need them if they could otherwise be employed or compensated for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. It is simply more cost effective and reduces incentive for fraud.

/----/ Yes, but you're missing the key point that Internal reconstruction needs a lot of time and statutory requirements to occur because in internal reconstruction the company has to take the permission of every stakeholder and also of the court. On the other hand, external reconstruction can be done immediately without any need of permission from the court.

you are missing the point about efficiency. labor would be self-selecting based on more economic reason rather than mere Necessity.

people could just quit and go unemployment through no fault of your own. our current regime of unemployment would need to be simplified to become more cost effective.

a general tax for unemployment compensation would eliminate that burden for the employment sector.

An at-will employment State should need to prove for-cause employment in any at-will employment State to deny or disparage unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis.

An Institutional upward pressure on wages also benefits the Poor and helps markets become more efficient through more full employment of capital resources.

/----/ No no no, one solution is bartering. Tom the stranger could trade Jill the seamstress something for a shirt. Yet for this to work Tom must have something that Jill wants that is of similar value to the shirt. This is called a coincidence of wants, and it is a hard thing to come by. There is no guarantee that Tom the stranger will have anything that Jill the seamstress wants, and even if he does, there is the problem of value. Problem solved.

a medium of exchange is simply more capitally efficient. we even put "In God We Trust" on our Fiat money, can you believe it?

/—-/ Only if you subscribe to the Kessington Model of Redistribution back when we were on the gold standard.

Adam Smith assumes full employment of resources. And our welfare clause is General not Common. Providing for the general welfare is an obligation of the general Government. However, I do subscribe to that concept.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ Yes, but you're missing the key point that Internal reconstruction needs a lot of time and statutory requirements to occur because in internal reconstruction the company has to take the permission of every stakeholder and also of the court. On the other hand, external reconstruction can be done immediately without any need of permission from the court.

you are missing the point about efficiency. labor would be self-selecting based on more economic reason rather than mere Necessity.

people could just quit and go unemployment through no fault of your own. our current regime of unemployment would need to be simplified to become more cost effective.

a general tax for unemployment compensation would eliminate that burden for the employment sector.

An at-will employment State should need to prove for-cause employment in any at-will employment State to deny or disparage unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis.

An Institutional upward pressure on wages also benefits the Poor and helps markets become more efficient through more full employment of capital resources.

/----/ No no no, one solution is bartering. Tom the stranger could trade Jill the seamstress something for a shirt. Yet for this to work Tom must have something that Jill wants that is of similar value to the shirt. This is called a coincidence of wants, and it is a hard thing to come by. There is no guarantee that Tom the stranger will have anything that Jill the seamstress wants, and even if he does, there is the problem of value. Problem solved.

a medium of exchange is simply more capitally efficient. we even put "In God We Trust" on our Fiat money, can you believe it?

/—-/ Only if you subscribe to the Kessington Model of Redistribution back when we were on the gold standard.

Adam Smith assumes full employment of resources. And our welfare clause is General not Common. Providing for the general welfare is an obligation of the general Government. However, I do subscribe to that concept.

/----/ Adam Smith never said, "From the viewpoint of problem solving, a complex system is a system whose behavior cannot be easily predicted from inspection of the system. A complex social system is a complex system whose behavior is primarily the result of the behavior of social agents. Examples are ant colonies, families, and nations." Someone else said it.

 

[danielpalos]

you are missing the point about efficiency. labor would be self-selecting based on more economic reason rather than mere Necessity.

people could just quit and go unemployment through no fault of your own. our current regime of unemployment would need to be simplified to become more cost effective.

a general tax for unemployment compensation would eliminate that burden for the employment sector.

An at-will employment State should need to prove for-cause employment in any at-will employment State to deny or disparage unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis.

An Institutional upward pressure on wages also benefits the Poor and helps markets become more efficient through more full employment of capital resources.

/----/ No no no, one solution is bartering. Tom the stranger could trade Jill the seamstress something for a shirt. Yet for this to work Tom must have something that Jill wants that is of similar value to the shirt. This is called a coincidence of wants, and it is a hard thing to come by. There is no guarantee that Tom the stranger will have anything that Jill the seamstress wants, and even if he does, there is the problem of value. Problem solved.

a medium of exchange is simply more capitally efficient. we even put "In God We Trust" on our Fiat money, can you believe it?

/—-/ Only if you subscribe to the Kessington Model of Redistribution back when we were on the gold standard.

Adam Smith assumes full employment of resources. And our welfare clause is General not Common. Providing for the general welfare is an obligation of the general Government. However, I do subscribe to that concept.

/----/ Adam Smith never said, "From the viewpoint of problem solving, a complex system is a system whose behavior cannot be easily predicted from inspection of the system. A complex social system is a complex system whose behavior is primarily the result of the behavior of social agents. Examples are ant colonies, families, and nations." Someone else said it.

it is about market friendly solutions through simpler prediction due to the efficiency of more full employment of resources.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ No no no, one solution is bartering. Tom the stranger could trade Jill the seamstress something for a shirt. Yet for this to work Tom must have something that Jill wants that is of similar value to the shirt. This is called a coincidence of wants, and it is a hard thing to come by. There is no guarantee that Tom the stranger will have anything that Jill the seamstress wants, and even if he does, there is the problem of value. Problem solved.

a medium of exchange is simply more capitally efficient. we even put "In God We Trust" on our Fiat money, can you believe it?

/—-/ Only if you subscribe to the Kessington Model of Redistribution back when we were on the gold standard.

Adam Smith assumes full employment of resources. And our welfare clause is General not Common. Providing for the general welfare is an obligation of the general Government. However, I do subscribe to that concept.

/----/ Adam Smith never said, "From the viewpoint of problem solving, a complex system is a system whose behavior cannot be easily predicted from inspection of the system. A complex social system is a complex system whose behavior is primarily the result of the behavior of social agents. Examples are ant colonies, families, and nations." Someone else said it.

it is about market friendly solutions through simpler prediction due to the efficiency of more full employment of resources.

/—-/ Or maybe not.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Well, it's hard to argue with that. It makes perfect sense to make sure that everyone who is getting food stamps is qualified to be getting them. I'm surprised that so many states automatically re-enroll food stamp recipients. That's just asking for waste and abuse. So, yeah, it's about time we took this common sense step to ensure that only the people who need food stamps are getting them.

The problem with that is many low intelligent people on foodstamps wont be able to re-enroll on their own they will need help. My wife is an example. She has been on and off foodstamps all her adult life, but there were times she couldnt get gov benefits because she had no one to help her with paperwork. She cant use computers too confusing for her.She struggles to read and can barely write legible english. She is a high school dropout and was labelled slow. Her IQ isnt low enough to be labelled mentally handicap and to get get assistance from gov for a disability.

If you take away automatic enrollment for food stamps it just creates too large of a road block for many who need foodstamps, but dont have the intelligence level to be able to re-enroll in them thats why automatic enrollment is better.

Then she needs to get someone to help her. Automatic reenrollment creates an open door for waste and abuse.

 

[danielpalos]

a medium of exchange is simply more capitally efficient. we even put "In God We Trust" on our Fiat money, can you believe it?

/—-/ Only if you subscribe to the Kessington Model of Redistribution back when we were on the gold standard.

Adam Smith assumes full employment of resources. And our welfare clause is General not Common. Providing for the general welfare is an obligation of the general Government. However, I do subscribe to that concept.

/----/ Adam Smith never said, "From the viewpoint of problem solving, a complex system is a system whose behavior cannot be easily predicted from inspection of the system. A complex social system is a complex system whose behavior is primarily the result of the behavior of social agents. Examples are ant colonies, families, and nations." Someone else said it.

it is about market friendly solutions through simpler prediction due to the efficiency of more full employment of resources.

/—-/ Or maybe not.

it must to the extent it is about returns to scale.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Trump administration to propose rule that would cut 3.1 million people from food stamp program: report
Trump administration to propose rule that would cut 3.1 million people from food stamp program: report

The Trump administration is set to propose a rule Tuesday that would cut about 3.1 million Americans from the food-stamp program in an effort to save taxpayers about $2.5 billion a year, reports said.

The U.S. has seen low levels of unemployment, which is seen as a major factor in low levels of participation in the program. President Trump tweeted earlier this month that food stamp use is at a 10-year low. Politifact verified the claim.

Reuters, citing a U.S. Department of Agriculture, reported that residents in 43 states who receive help from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, automatically enroll in the food-stamp program, known as the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, or SNAP.

The USDA intends to review these TANF cases to see if participants qualify for the program.

“This proposal will save money and preserve the integrity of the program,” Sonny Perdue, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, said in a conference call. “SNAP should be a temporary safety net.”

SNAP, which was formerly known as the Food Stamps Program, is a federal program that provides grocery assistance for people out of work or with low incomes living in the U.S. To qualify for the program, individuals must make 130 percent or less of the federal poverty level based on the household size.......(SNIP)

ME: Its about time we start reducing spending by botting off lazy people who do not need food stamps.

Agreed